I found this video on cosmology that some people might find interesting.

7ImvlS8PLIo

Not for the faint of heart, it does contain an introduction by Richard Dawkins, a swear word, maths, and cruelty to biologists. That notwithstanding, it is a very interesting introduction to cosmology.

I posted this video in the Replying to The Speed Of Light thread of the Young Earth vs Old Earth forum to try and give everyone an insight into cosmology and why cosmologists are pursuing the theories that they are. Rather than derail that thread with a discussion of the video, I thought it might be nice if we could discuss it here.

Space is not filled with "nothing". It is in fact a "foamy see" of particles winking in and out of existence. We've measured the energy of these particles. We even know about "vacuum energy". Go ahead, read up on that one.

Yes, this is difficult science and if you don't want to believe it, fine. But you can't deny that fact that science found these things. So what did the universe come from? We don't have all the answers but the video is a good start.

Yes, I know AIG makes and EFT loves to show videos too. Here's the catch, this video is not just someone's wistful thinking. There are a lot of peer-reviewed, critiqued and vigorously looked into papers that help us understand what's around us.

Space is not filled with "nothing".Ã‚Â It is in fact a "foamy see" of particles winking in and out of existence.Ã‚Â We've measured the energy of these particles.Ã‚Â We even know about "vacuum energy".Ã‚Â Go ahead, read up on that one.

Yes, this is difficult science and if you don't want to believe it, fine.Ã‚Â But you can't deny that fact that science found these things.Ã‚Â So what did the universe come from?Ã‚Â We don't have all the answers but the video is a good start.

Yes, I know AIG makes and EFT loves to show videos too.Ã‚Â Here's the catch, this video is not just someone's wistful thinking.Ã‚Â There are a lot of peer-reviewed, critiqued and vigorously looked into papers that help us understand what's around us.

Enough with the peer review implications. Check this out FrankH. [url=http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html]Peers[URL] Most creationists are not going to get a paper on origins or flood geology in a uniform or evo journal.

Of course, that's largely because most creationist papers don't have a very good base in science...

That is incorrect and prejudice on your part martemius. Just because creationist papers aren't loaded with evolution theology (in said papers) in no way dilutes the scientific base of said papers. Therefore, you r response can be construed as a type of equivocation.

That is incorrect and prejudice on your part martemius. Just because creationist papers aren't loaded with evolution theology (in said papers) in no way dilutes the scientific base of said papers. Therefore, you r response can be construed as a type of equivocation.

Could you please link me a cosmology paper that was rejected from the journals that I may read - one that promotes your ideas about cosmology, or ideas that jive with your creationist beliefs? Also, evolution theology? What is that? What does that have to do with cosmology?

Evolution theology is anything devoted to the dogmatic defense of the pseudo-science of macro-evolution (or the support of micro + millions of years = macro) as fact. And an evolutheist is the person that adheres to such religion.

What does that have to do with cosmology?

If someone attempts to tie macro-evolution into cosmology (i.e. see Transpermia etc..) and attempts to treat it as fact, they are a theistic evo fundamentalist as well.

Evolution theology is anything devoted to the dogmatic defense of the pseudo-science of macro-evolution (or the support of micro + millions of years = macro) as fact. And an evolutheist is the person that adheres to such religion.

Evolution theology is anything devoted to the dogmatic defense of the pseudo-science of macro-evolution (or the support of micro + millions of years = macro) as fact. And an evolutheist is the person that adheres to such religion. If someone attempts to tie macro-evolution into cosmology (i.e. see Transpermia etc..) and attempts to treat it as fact, they are a theistic evo fundamentalist as well.

Then this should be simple for you then - can you give me a cosmology paper from the journals that you have read that promotes this "Evolution Theology" and explain which part, or equation, exaclty encodes this belief?

Evolution theology is anything devoted to the dogmatic defense of the pseudo-science of macro-evolution (or the support of micro + millions of years = macro) as fact. And an evolutheist is the person that adheres to such religion. If someone attempts to tie macro-evolution into cosmology (i.e. see Transpermia etc..) and attempts to treat it as fact, they are a theistic evo fundamentalist as well.

Interesting.But since there is no "pseudo-science of macro-evolution" I guess therefore there is no such thing as "evolution theology" or an "evolutheist".Thanks ever so.

Both questions were answered. It seems though, that you simply don't like the answers.

*Ahem* "Could you please link me a cosmology paper that was rejected from the journals that I may read - one that promotes your ideas about cosmology, or ideas that jive with your creationist beliefs?"

Then this should be simple for you then - can you give me a cosmology paper from the journals that you have read that promotes this "Evolution Theology" and explain which part, or equation, exaclty encodes this belief?

This should be hard for you. Can you show me a cosmology paper from the journals that doesn't imply or promote millions of years and then trends to evolutionisim?

*Ahem* "Could you please link me a cosmology paper that was rejected from the journals that I may read - one that promotes your ideas about cosmology, or ideas that jive with your creationist beliefs?"

8. J.G. Hartnett, Ã¢â‚¬Å“Spiral galaxy rotation curves described using cosmological general relativityÃ¢â‚¬Â, in the Proceedings of the 8th Symposium on the Frontiers of Fundamental Physics, Madrid, Spain, AIP Conf. Proc. 905, 27-29, 2007.

9. J.G. Hartnett, Ã¢â‚¬Å“CarmeliÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s cosmology: The universe is spatially flat without dark matterÃ¢â‚¬Â, published by Springer-Verlag in the Proceedings of the 6th Symposium on the Frontiers of Fundamental Physics, Udine, Italy, pp. 21-28, 2004.

19. Gentry, R.V. 1984a. "Radioactive Halos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective." Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science 1, 38

25. Herrmann "Solutions to the 'General Grand Unification Problem,' and the Questions 'How Did Our Universe Come Into Being?' and 'Of What is Empty Space Composed?" Presented before the MAA, at Western Maryland College, 12 Nov. (1994)

34. Frank J. Tipler, "How to Construct a Falsifiable Theory in Which the Universe Came into Being Several Thousand Years Ago," PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1984, Vol. Two: Symposia and Invited Papers (1984), pp. 873-902. * (note: dispite the name, the author does not advocate a young earth)

42. J.G. Hartnett, Ã¢â‚¬Å“Fourier analysis of the large scale spatial distribution of galaxies in the universe,Ã¢â‚¬Â in the Proceedings of the 2nd Crisis in Cosmology Conference, Port Angeles, WA USA, in press, 2008.

43. J.G. Hartnett, Ã¢â‚¬Å“The distance modulus determined from CarmeliÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s cosmology fits the accelerating universe data of the high-redshift type Ia supernovae without dark matterÃ¢â‚¬Â, abstract published in the Proceedings of the Australian Institute of Physics Congress, Canberra, Jan 2005.

The question still stands however. Your ability to dodge questions is uncanny. Just link a creationist cosmology paper so that I can read it - more points if it was rejected from a journal. Or, link a cosmology paper that in your opinion contains clear evidence of "Evolution Theology" - oh and be specific. If you don't understand the paper then don't bother.

Oh I see - so if it differs from your belief system it is automatically Evolution Theology.Ã‚Â Ã‚Â Ã‚Â Ã‚Â Fantastic science there.

It (macro-evolution) is speculation, and therefore not science, but it is pretty Ã¢â‚¬Å“fantasticÃ¢â‚¬Â. And yes, itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s just another belief system.

P.S. nice link Ã¢â‚¬Å“The online system may be temporarily unavailable. Please check back in a few minutes. If you need additional assistance, please contact Scitation Customer Service: help@scitation.orgPhone: 1-800 874-6383 (U.S. and Canada)516-576-2664 (Outside the U.S. and Canada)Ã¢â‚¬Â